Slashdot Mirror
Fired for Solitare At Work
schlick writes "The Associated Press is carrying a story about a NYC employee fired after Mayor Michael Bloomberg noticed a game of solitare on the employee's desktop at work." From the article: "Greenwood, who earned $27,000 a year and had worked in the office for six years, said in a telephone interview that he limited his play time to his one-hour lunch or during quick breaks when he needed a moment of distraction. 'It wasn't like I spent hours and hours a day playing, because I had plenty to do,' Greenwood said. 'If I had been working at something exhaustively for two hours, I might get a cup of coffee and play for a minute but then go right back to my work.'"
The problem is that some employers fail to recognize that eight full hours of productivity isn't a realistic goal
You've got to be F'ing kidding me! With a work ethic like that, it's no wonder the bubble burst. I'd love to see your resume, and whether or not you've held a solid job within the past 8 years.
BBH
It just goes to show that any two-bit jerk-off can call himself a manager. It's good that he finally saw the light, but being THAT IGNORANT from the get-go doesn't make for a positive company culture.
Your just a looser who is jelous of someone that worked thier way to the top Jesus Christ. Grammatical and spelling standards sure have gone down around here. You forgot the fucking period, idiot.
"Insightful"? What the fuck. The above example is a situation in which the company (aka THE EMPLOYER) has a performance guideline for employees, and the manager (aka the EMPLOYER's PETTY MINION) has a personal grievance with the emloyee and is cherry picking examples. They haven't come up with a good excuse (aka you arent "doing the job they hired you to do") implies that he's actually doing his job quite well, despite the reviewer's best efforts to demonstrate otherwise.
Working might not be a right. But firing people you don't like from a company you also work for wouldn't a right either. I suggest you go back to Libertarian school and study hard this time.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
As bad as the original Ford was in terms of labor, I can't help but notice that back then our car industry was the envy of the world. Now that we've got unionized auto workers making more than a college professor and working fewer hours than a banker, our auto industry is in shambles. I'm not saying the old extreme was good, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit far in terms of employee's sense of entitlement.
which is what you're implying happened.
I directly stated it you moron. If you don't know about the issue, then keep your ignorant hole shut.
Believing in a rigid class structure is simply an incorrect mindset that feeds itself the poison you've spewed in your comment.
The poison I've spewed into my comment?
Your poor command of the language and rhetorical logic betrays the relative feebleness of your mind right from the git-go.
Watch out, folks! I'm gonna have to spill this kid's blood. Keep an eye out for splatter...
It would certainly help to achieve your aims, because a leftist society requires a rigid class structure to keep the workers in line, but what you're talking about is wishful thinking, not a valid observation.
Research bears me out. A hierarchy BY DEFINITION means that only a relative few make it to the upper levels. NO MATTER WHAT CRITERIA YOU ESTABLISH FOR SUCH LEVEL MOBILITY, you ALWAYS come back to that fundamental fact-->a hierarchy BY DEFINITION MEANS THAT ONLY A RELATIVE FEW ARE AT THE TOP.
ALWAYS.
This is only in a society where there is enforced stratification, which isn't the case at all. Anyone, with proper application of willpower, can bring themselves into the level of the so-called elite. No one has a magic barrier preventing this. Only people who refuse to raise themselves up are stuck.
Just because you could do that does not mean that everyone can. Once again, you resort to "turtles all the way down" logic.
BY DEFINITION ONLY A RELATIVE FEW CAN MAKE IT TO THE TOP OF ANY HIERARCHY.
that is the IMMUTABLE, TIMELESS, definition of hierarchy.
And anyway, if you thinks American culture is driven by a so-called elite you obviously haven't noticed any popular entertainment over the last fifteen years.
Popular entertainment is a product of HUGE AMOUNTS of money. You think the elite DO NOT control that amonnt of money.
The system works like natural selection evolution in an ecosystem. The elite control mass media and popular entertainment production. All ideas pass through their filter. Just as in the ecosytem, the animal species are molded and evolved by the environmental forces of that ecosytem, which shapes them (e.g., the giraffe evolves a long neck due to environmental forces upon it), so too does the american culture evolve to suit the elite, because the elite control the ideology that becomes part of the culture.
eat shiat and bark at the moon